If the World Wants a “Safe” 2026 World Cup, It Must Confront the Violence We Already See in America

Photo: The Globe and Mail

For countries planning to send players, officials, and fans to the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the first question is not “Will the games be exciting?” — it is “Will visitors be safe?” Safety is not abstract. It is measured in real incidents. And in the United States, there is a rapidly growing body of evidence that federal immigration enforcement agents are killing and injuring people — including U.S. citizens — with little accountability. That reality must shape any serious risk assessment by sovereign governments.

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, during a federal immigration crackdown known as Operation Metro Surge, an agent from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shot and killed Renée Nicole Macklin Good, a 37-year-old mother of three and U.S. citizen. Video footage later circulated showing the agent firing multiple shots into her vehicle. Local officials — including the mayor — publicly rejected the federal claim of “self-defense” and called the shooting reckless.

That killing was not an isolated blip. In the same period, federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a Minneapolis resident; multiple encounters involving federal agents and civilians have led to protests and widespread public outrage.

Here is the critical problem: these incidents demonstrate that violent force by federal immigration agents is occurring in U.S. cities at the same time the world is preparing to send its citizens to a global sporting event hosted in part by that very nation. The official narrative from federal authorities insists that these shootings were justified and that agents enjoy broad legal immunity — even when independent video evidence raises serious questions about the necessity and proportionality of lethal force.

This is not speculation. Independent reporting and legal analyses show that in the Good case, local leaders and eyewitnesses dispute the federal account, and federal investigations have restricted state access to evidence — making accountability difficult.

For countries considering participation in 2026, these facts suggest a fundamental risk:

• Federal law enforcement agents are using deadly force on streets within the host nation, including against unarmed individuals, with official immunity cited as a shield.

• Investigations are federally controlled and local authorities have been cut out of evidence, undermining transparent legal scrutiny.

• There have been multiple shootings and injuries during these operations, drawing protests and political conflict in U.S. cities.

How many visiting fans or team members would have to encounter aggressive enforcement, wrongful detention, or excessive force before a diplomatic crisis overshadows the tournament?

And yet, instead of addressing these concerns with clear, binding guarantees, international sports bureaucracy appears more concerned with optics than obligations. The leadership of FIFA — which has already been criticized for cozying up to political power in host nations — has given no indication that it will enforce standards beyond the minimal requirements for stadium infrastructure and ticketing. Countries that remain silent are effectively endorsing a system in which similar violence could target their citizens.

Let’s be clear: this is not about partisanship. It is about duty of care. If immigration enforcement in the United States — under the aegis of one of the World Cup’s hosts — can result in multiple civilian deaths, ongoing civil unrest, and a legal framework that limits transparency and local oversight, then the presumption of safety is invalid. Governments must demand detailed, enforceable, legal guarantees, not press releases.

Before committing to participation, nations should require, at minimum:

1. Explicit assurances that foreign visitors will not be subject to discretionary immigration enforcement actions.

2. Binding commitments to independent investigations of any fatal or injurious encounters involving visitors.

3. Consular access rights that cannot be overridden by federal immunity claims.

4. A public, transparent mechanism for monitoring and addressing civilian harm during the tournament period.

Without these, sending teams, support staff, and fans into an environment where force is routinely employed — and where legal immunity can be invoked to dodge accountability — is not just risky; it is irresponsible.

Sport is meant to unify. But global unity begins with basic human safety. The world should insist on nothing less before the first whistle blows.